Talk:Agave

Untitled
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Agave article:

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"): Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right. Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to &mdash; LinkBot 11:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Can link Dragon Tree: ...y Plant *Agave attenuata &amp;ndash; Swan's Neck Agave, Dragon Tree Agave, Foxtail Agave... (link to section)
 * Can link St. Croix: ...Agave eggersiana'' Trel. &amp;ndash; Eggers' Century Plant, St. Croix Agave... (link to section)
 * Can link Octopus Agave: ...i *Agave nissoni *Agave nizandensis'' &amp;ndash; Dwarf Octopus Agave ... (link to section)
 * Can link Puerto Rico: ... polianthoides *Agave portoricensis'' Trel. &amp;ndash; Puerto Rico Century Plant... (link to section)
 * Can link Tequila Agave: ...Agave tequilana]]'' A. Weber &amp;ndash; Mezcal azul tequilero, Tequila Agave, Weber Blue Agave (gives tequila)... (link to section)
 * In Dassault-Dornier Alpha Jet, can backlink AGAVE: ...pit multifunction displays (MFDs) and potential carriage of AGAVE or Anemone radar, a forward-looking infrared (FLIR) imager,...

Judd
Please have a look at the hidden note in my last edit. If the relevant Judd is on the disambiguation page, please re-instate the link. Deano 16:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Messy para
Can someone sort this para out? I tried editing it but gave up because I didn't know what the contributor was saying. So, for the moment. I've taken it out of the article.

''However, in May of 2000 the US Food & Drug Administration explicitedly stated in writing that this non Generally Recoginzed As Safe natural health food sweetener was mis branded, mis labeled and not in compliance with code of Federal Regulation Standard for ingredient identity in the USA and indeed refined high fructose hydrolyzed inulin syrup. Many major users of agave syrups or nectars or juices ceased using it as a result. Hydrolyzed high fructose inulin sweeteners (70 to 90 DE) are metabolized in the human Kreb Cycle to fat (adipose tissue) and triglycerides (LDL or bad cholesterol inducing)''.

Thanks - Adrian Pingstone 09:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Aloe bloom plant labeled as Agave in bloom?
Removed the 3rd image, which was of an aloe plant in bloom, but labeled as an agave plant in bloom. Obvious error, and seeing as how the 2 plants look nothing alike, it is hard to believe it passed this long. This was the link :



HaeSuse 10:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the image is misnamed, or it's a very strangely mutated aloe :-) - what aloe has multi-meter flowering stems with the flowers in panicles? The confusion is probably as aloe explains, that Agave americana often called an aloe (and indeed the appearance of the panicles is a pretty good match for A. americana. Stan 19:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes
I don't think moving all the images into a gallery is an improvement, nor is deleting text about the best-known species without moving it to its article, but I'm willing to entertain discussion before reverting. Stan 21:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Stan, the pictures are easier to find in the gallery (which can also include pictures of common cultivars etc). It is unpleasant to have to scroll down the very long list of species (again, in my opinion) in order to find a picture that may or may not be next to the name of that species. It's also difficult to house pictures of a larger number of Agave species in said listing - thus my preference for it. I disagree re: the best known species - certainly in Australia the most commonly grown species is Agave attenuata - though I think perhaps it would be best to include links to these common species in the introductory ramble. Thoughts? MidgleyDJ 21:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the three most commonly grown species (in Australia - I cant speak for elsewhere) to the preamble (americana, angustifolia & attenuata). Hopefully that helps your concerns Stan re: linking to the most commonly grown species. I've also added new pictures of cultivars and species to the gallery section - which given the length of the listing of species I still think is the tidier option. MidgleyDJ 22:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To me the purpose of pictures alongside the species list is more as a sample of the variation (and to fill up blank space :-) ), rather than a search mechanism - we have quite a few agave pictures in all (I just added about ten more to commons just a couple days ago for example), and a useful visual index is going to need to be much much bigger than the handful of images that have found their way into this article. On species descriptions, if A. attenuata is common in Oz, then it deserves a sentence or two of description here too, enough to interest readers in following the link. Full species list is good for completeness, but they don't help the reader distinguish what is found in every backyard from the obscure endemic that hasn't had three words written about it since it was described :-), so (IMHO) genus articles should have a section prior that highlights the most interesting species, at least mentioning why they are the most notable. Stan 22:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, that species list is about at the breakeven point for separating into its own page. Stan 22:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Separation of the list sounds like a good idea to me. I'm in the process of creating a "commonly grown species" section (daggy name, I know) MidgleyDJ 22:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a possibility that at least one species of Agave is not truly semelparous (see Secrets of the Sonoran Desert, 1997, Finley-Holiday Film Corp.)Minkman5052 16:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minkman5052 (talk • contribs)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

New addition for someone
I've noticed that this has no mention of this being used in alcohol fermentation see wik on beer if someone wants to write about it 220.101.4.140 (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Tequ
I've removed the term "tequ plants" from the A. americana section. This was the first mention of that common name, and I wonder if it applies to A. tequilana rather that A. americana. Nadiatalent (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source
In response to a "citation required" tag, User:Tony mendoza has added a reference to Botany in a Day by Thomas J Elpel, Hops Press. It's probably ok to show that agave tea is taken with the purpose of relieving arthritis, but in generally this book is very out of date as to botanical families (e.g. this page doesn't correspond to modern views of the Liliaceae). Peter coxhead (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI
I have removed the following quote, because it is not contained in the cited sources:
 * Agave is used in the mass production of lubricant for use with commercial trolley units. The water-soluble carbohydrates and fructan structure patterns of agave sap result in a low coefficient of friction with little additional processing. It has seen particularly wide adoption in Mexico where it is relatively cheap to produce.

Is agave really used in lubrication? A quick couple Google searches suggests no, but this article notes that agave fibers exhibit "self-lubrication"—they slide well. Is that what the IP meant? Bernanke&#39;s Crossbow (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Agave in Europe in 4th century BCE
This source: twice mentions that a mixture of agave leaves and pitch was used in the construction of the hull of a fourth century BCE ship. Implausible claims need strong evidence, and there is no information on how it was decided that the leaves were of an agave. Identifying leaves this old would not be a trivial matter. Agaves were exclusively found in the Americas until Europeans arrived. So I'm not inclined to add the information to the article unless there are other more detailed sources. Archaeological articles are not reliable sources of botanical information.

There's no mention of agave in this more detailed report.

My guess is that the fibres are from some species of aloe; Aloe vera can be used as a source of fibre, for example. But this is speculation. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * In 2001 Steffy stated that the samples were identified as agave by biologists from Kew Gardens in England. Geneva11 (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, the 1972 report that is indicated as being more detailed is actually a much less detailed report than the Steffy article (number of pages is an easy indicator but also the level of detail and breadth of description is greater in practically every regard).Geneva11 (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, on looking again, you are right re the reports.
 * The Sorenson & Johannessen book expresses what appears to be a WP:FRINGE view on trade between the Old and New Worlds before Columbus et al. I'd like to see a Kew authored publication saying that the plant was identified as an agave.
 * I'll post at WT:PLANTS to see if there's anyone with more knowledge around. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Sorenson and Johannessen book was only used for clarification of Steffy's analysis. The book contains a written communication from Steffy on April 18, 2001 where Steffy states that "the first samples were identified in Kew Gardens in England. A second set was done later in the U.S. with the same results, but I can't remember which lab did it. ... I am a ship construction specialist, not a biologist, so I can only repeat the information given to me in such cases."  The point is that it was an analysis by biologists, not archaeologists.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geneva11 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This book says it was independently identified by experts from Kew, the US Dept. Agriculture, and a third specialist, but the citation is not available in the preview. I would imagine the state of the leaves was poor and any such identifications were best guesses based purely on limited characteristics. Probably insufficent to support the existence of Atlantis.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 09:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I would agree to the removal (I have just removed the edits on the lead of cashew as well) as these are essentially claims by a very small number of authors with a number of citations to themselves. Having seen the Sorensen paper and subsequent claims associated with Pre-Columbian Indian contact with the New World I can say that the evidence is rather weak for all the identifications made from carvings etc. (I have a whole bunch of images of the purported maize carvings from an Indian temple - File:Halebid_Muktaphala_1.jpg, ..., File:Halebid_Muktaphala_19.jpg) The issue is the same with cashew and Annona squamosa - the visual resemblance is weak - unfortunately there is a strong wave of nationalism that rides on such hypotheses. Shyamal (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC) [PS: this new edit can definitely be added to the article at Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories ]


 * I think you missed ehe iUniverse bit - the book is self-published. Another editor removed it from Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories a few hours ago. Doug Weller  talk 07:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh well, am I glad to hear! I learned in the meantime that John L. Sorenson's "research" was essentially aimed at propping up something about the beliefs of the Mormon church, needless to say, to which he proudly belonged. Shyamal (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Description may not be correct
The Description section probably needs to be updated to take account of the inclusion of Manfreda and Polianthes, among others. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

And the images (e.g. the gallery) should include species formerly placed in now included genera. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A133 agave weberi - Flickr - Juan Ignacio 1976.jpg